This free course from the University of London explores critical thinking, and the interpretation of texts, through the Shakespeare authorship question. Using doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship as our playground, we will explore the key concept of authorship attribution, while developing skills in literary analysis, interpretation, and argument. Through forensic exploration of key texts, you will learn why Shakespeare’s authorship is questioned, and what evidence is cited on both sides of the debate.
For those of you interested in exploring the works of Shakespeare from a new angle, or just wanting to hone your analytical thinking skills, this course offers an introduction to a fascinating area of interest. Those of you already interested in the Shakespeare authorship question will be encouraged to question your own assumptions in fruitful ways. Whether undertaken as a standalone course, or as preparation for the University of London BA in English, this course will be food for thought.

SP

I want to know about who wrote Shakespeare, I never imagined that such easy way to know that and get certified internationally. Thank you, You made my life!!

CS

Sep 05, 2019

Filled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled Star

The course was fantastic! I did this not really knowing what I was getting into, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.\n\nI cannot wait to start another course.

À partir de la leçon

The First Folio as Proof of Authorship

In this final module you’ll explore the key text supporting the traditional attribution of Shakespeare’s works: the 1623 First Folio of Shakespeare’s works. You will learn why the First Folio is a critically important text for those interested in the Shakespeare authorship question, and you will study in detail – applying the textual analysis skills you have developed so far - the texts included in its preface..

Enseigné par

Ros Barber

Dr

Transcription

What's the strongest evidence or argument for the traditional attribution would you say? Well, I've often dreamt of being a Stratfordian and standing up in court and defending the Stratfordian case. I think I would probably heave out Heminges and Condell. It's not great. But look, Heminges and Condell appear on Shakespeare, Stratford wills. So that's a good thing. So it left him some money and he definitely knows Heminges because there's also a deed. [inaudible] has with the Heminges named on it. So Stratford Shakespeare knows Heminges. Heminges is involved with the theater. Okay. These steps we're comfortable, we know this, and there we seem to have Heminges saying these are the remnants of your servant, Shakespeare. Aye to Lord [inaudible]. He's saying your servant, Shakespeare. I would waive that around a little bit if I were a Stratfordian. It doesn't make me gulp, it doesn't make me worry, it doesn't make my heart palpitate for a second. But the only thing I think about is, it takes me just a little bit longer to explain why that's wrong than it takes a Stratfordian to say why it's right. So I think my answer, although I'm absolutely sure it's correct, is just a little bit more convoluted and if you're sitting in front of someone who doesn't know the arguments very well, I suspect they might say that Stratfordian argument to sounds a little bit better and clearer to me. It's simple. It`s simple, and to explain why Heminges and Condell a, didn't write it, b, didn't mean it that way, and everything so double meanings. So when they say that they're his plays, now as you know, there's quite a lot of literature saying that Stratford Shakespeare may have been involved in a sort of investment sense in the theater. He may have bought up rights. We have this extraordinary poem called On Poet-Ape by Ben Johnson, and Ben Johnson's talking about someone, doesn't name him, talking about someone who seems to be an actor, poet-ape who buys up the reversion into old place. We studied on the module. Yes. Good. He allows the sluggish gaping auditor rather rude way that equals Stratfordians. The sluggish gaping audit to suppose there might be by him. But he says the clever ones they know a fleece, fleece of course is a pun on a ripoff. They know a ripoff from the genuine article. They know locks of wool from a fleece. So let's say that Stratford Shakespeare was that a man. Maybe he was buying the rights of all plays. Now back to your question about Heminges and Condell, if you say his plays, it might be fair. Again, we were looking at this very slippery world of double meanings. If he had bought some of those rights of those plays, I don't think there's anything wrong in saying his plays. In fact, my own belief is some of the plays that are not by Shakespeare, that have Shakespeare's name on them, for instance, The Yorkshire tragedy, The London Prodigal. They weren't Stratford Shakespeare's plays. He probably bought the rights then he puts by W. Shakespeare, then actually, fine, it's his property, he's invested in it, he's putting his name, and I'm pretty sure that he's taking advantage of the fact that name is very similar, if not identical, to the name of the author who produced Venus and Adonis and various quarters up to that one. I think that is, yeah, this is more than one way of coming at the name, isn't there? Because you either say that the author independently decided on William Shakespeare and then somehow William Shakespeare is Stratford comes in and takes advantage and essentially acts as if he steals it, although he's not. So gets involved in theater, for example. Or you say that there's an arrangement upfront whereby the name is interchangeable. The name is William Shakespeare is William Shakespeare. It doesn't matter that he's essentially agreed if you like to be William Shakespeare for the purpose of hiding and identity. Yeah. Rose, you are touching on I think the single most difficult area here, because nobody knows what role, if any, William Shakespeare Stratford played, and you probably find among people who are convinced non-Stratfordians that they are in total disagreement about this. I can only, for what it's worth, give you my own take on it. That name first appeared with these two poems of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece 1593 and 1594. Now, if you're going to have a pseudonym and you're a poet, I honestly think you can't think of a more obvious one than Will Shakespeare. Now, I get as lost as everybody else, and to what degree William Shakespeare Stratford gets involved? Because the publisher of those first two poems was Richard Field. Richard Field came from Stratford-upon-Avon and would have been a contemporary of Stratford Shakespeare more or less. He was three years older and left when he was 15. This is from a place where they have a single school room. So had Shakespeare taken up the the option that his father had for for a free grammar school education right up until the point where he hit financial difficulties, they would have been in the same room despite the three-year difference. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously, we also know that there was some problem between John Shakespeare and Richard Field's father. No love lost perhaps there. Nevertheless, this is obviously for the traditional scholars. This is an important link that someone who they would say a school friend because you've got no proof of that at all, but a school friend of William Shakespeare is the publisher of the very first publications that have been named William Shakespeare. Yes. They do have that to say, but it runs into difficulties quite early on this. You've got to remember what the idea is. The idea of school chump goes up to another school chumps. Look, I've got this rather lewd and tricky poem, will you put it out? Now, we don't have any evidence that Field operated in that way at all really. He was apprentice to a man called Vautrollier who was a extremely important printer to Lord Burghley was perhaps the most important statesman in land, and Field, himself dedicated in 1589 a book called The Arte of English Poesie to Burghley, and it seems that he's very thick with a sort of top lot there. When you look at Venus and Adonis, it's sort of very fascinating because we seem to have a imprimatur from Whitgift who's the Archbishop of Canterbury. There seems to be quite a lot of high up players going on here, and once again, you come back to this problem that nobody knows any writer or any poet or any playwright at that date called William Shakespeare. No. It's the first-time that name appears. So what you are saying is that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself licensed it for publication. That's correct. Because it is quite elude poem, isn't it? Very altering the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lots of comment after it's published from other people saying this is a dirty poem. Going back to Richard Field then, so you're saying it's just coincidence that you came from Stratford-upon-Avon who was also the publisher of the first works by William Shakespeare? Yes. I mean, it got to come from somewhere. Okay, Stratford is kind of small town. I seem to think that the age differences a bit more significant than you do. I mean, he left for London when he was 15, Stratford Shakespeare would have been 11. We don't really know it. The grammar school started at seven and he could have been at the grammar school from the age of 7-12. So that would have been the time when Richard Field was seven. One possible year, if he was. We don't know what age he was at. No, indeed. But they both have the option. Yeah. I mean, fine. It stands on quite a lot of stilts of ifs and buts and perhaps and maybes.